TruthAndDare

This sounds simply like someone complaining about what prices the market has settled on for education, for the skills that this education provides, and for loans. Yes, I too would like to earn more and pay less.

Thanks!

I can see it now, but I still can't comment on it. Is that because the author deleted it or something?

What issue are you talking about? Surely not the same as Einstein, right?

Well, I can always flaunt some unique flaws.

Isn't it usually said that Einstein betrayed his wife? That's pretty horrible to me, no matter how "right" (in your opinion and mine) he was about other things.

I agree. I also think it's annoying that the comment now is deleted and can't be replied to. I had just written a reply where I responded to many points, explaining what I think is wrong with them, but I can't post it now...

The only thing I agreed with is that I'd like HN to be for hacker stuff, and not for politics and social commentary.

(Also, why is a commend denoted "flagged", when it in reality is deleted?)

I guess what I'm asking is why we need the EU in the first place when it comes to issues like this one when we could make that kind of agreements anyway, without having to cede all power.

I don't see that this answers my question. Why can't, say, Great Britain make such an agreement with, say, Spain, and then make the same agreement (or choose not to) with Romania?

Btw, non-EU countries in Europe are already in on some of the agreements that exist between EU countries, without having to agree to everything else the EU does. Wouldn't that be a working kind of collaboration?

OK, but what does it have to do with my comment?

The "deaf / hard of hearing" poster is weird. Several of the points seem to have nothing to do with hearing.

https://github.com/UKHomeOffice/posters/blob/master/accessib...

> the freedom of movement that the EU offered them

If this is desirable, why can't it be had through agreements between pairs of countries without there having to be a European union that you hand over many other powers to?

The same goes for other things related to barriers between countries.

That would mean that the rest of the people (i.e. not the fire fighting company) aren't rational. I'm not sure we can put the responsibility on a company to behave so as to save everyone else from their irrationality.

That sounds like a different issue, really. Do you mean that it is an argument for classifying videos as "extremist" and disallowing them?

> predatory practices by private companies

It does sound awful not to have access to fire service to someone like me who is used to it,* but then again, have the company done anything wrong by offering the service? Starting no company at all and offering no service at all would have been acceptable, right? I mean, that's what most of us do. Then, is there really anything wrong with offering people a service, even at a high price, if you don't take away any alternative they already had (which in this case would be to let the house burn)?

* I haven't actually ever used the service, but I count on that they will come if I call. I count on the fire department coming more than I do the police, because if there's a fire, other people's stuff and lives are on the line. When it's just about me, I'm not as sure that I am considered worth the cost. For the record, I'm in Europe.

> Shows how most CEOs of even large companies are human like everyone else

Um, it doesn't really say anything about most CEOs, does it?

Actually, I think it shows how this guy is different from others, because he seems more nutty than most people.

The point of the algorithm is simply to choose advertisements as successfully as possible.

I don't follow you. When do you start with biased data? Furthermore, wouldn't a advertisement system that somehow progresses to an increasingly erroneous view be broken anyway?

> It's bad enough that those with sufficient computing speed/power can already rip off the stock market

Who is getting ripped off?

I guess it's the same think that makes any object with an interesting history appealing. People would rather have an original piece of art than a copy, cherish the pen that belonged to a deceased father more than an otherwise identical pen, and find greater interest in an archaeological artifact than in a modern reproduction.

Not too appealing, honestly.

> This would suggest that for most people suicide is merely a phase they can pass through.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that necessarily means that these people are better off surviving. One could imagine that they are in pain that is temporary, but severe enough that they are better off dieing immediately, even taking into account that they are missing out on the life that would otherwise have come after the pain.

By making them stay alive, we are perhaps forcing them into the worse option.

> Not sure humanity is progressing, though.

What would constitute humanity progressing? Would evolution count? Would it count if it appeared in the shape of weeding out suicidal people?

> Derek de Solla Price is an interesting character. 50+ years ago while stacking and organizing scientific journals by year, he noticed the stacks grew in height in a logarithmic curve. From there, so much.

I'm afraid I don't understand, especially not the last sentence. Could you explain?

> and their science and craft carried on

And their gods too?

> They would look at us as moral degenerates. But despite this, our society manages to function quite well, roughly.

Is that really how we should judge it? I can imagine a society full of slavery functioning well according to some measure. Does that say anything about the morality of slavery?

That wasn't what I was arguing.

Regardless of whether or not we're documening sex, why document gender if it is only "a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave"?

Really? That notion seems alive and well to me. Maybe it's not important to you.

I don't think you can do, or have time to do, a genetic test as an emergency responder, if that's what you mean. But is that really why we put it on documents anyway?

> Emphasizing that being nonbinary is rare only serves to legitimize labelling it as other as something that's not normal

Is it normal?

Just a note: Having XXY chromosomes does not make you without sex. You'd be male, unless there is something else wrong.